Planning Committee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Planning Committee 2.00pm, Wednesday, 12 December 2018 Planning Schemes of Delegation Item number Report number Executive/routine Wards All Council Commitments Executive Summary The schemes of delegation on planning applications allow officers to make decisions in the interests of an effective and efficient service. However, safeguards are required to ensure that there is an appropriate level of scrutiny by the Development Management Sub-committee of applications which raise issues of significant public interest. Following an investigation of circumstances leading to a delegated decision to approve a planning application at a major sporting venue, procedures are being tightened to reduce risk and deliver quality assurance. While the planning decision in this case remains as granted, it is recognised that a process was not in place which would have escalated the application to more senior Planning Officers for a second opinion. Report Planning Schemes of Delegation 1. Recommendations 1.1 That the Committee agrees to the proposed changes to procedures specified in paragraphs 3.24 – 3.28 to reduce risk and deliver quality assurance. 1.2 In relation to the planning application for an additional rugby stadium at Murrayfield, that the Committee notes the apology to interested parties from the Executive Director of Place in relation to the lack of a process which would have escalated the application to more senior Planning Officers for a second opinion on whether to refer the application to the Development Management Sub-committee for determination. 2. Background 2.1 In the main, delegated powers in respect of planning fall within the Council’s overall scheme of delegation to officers set out in terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. However, section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires planning authorities to draw up a statutory scheme of delegation in respect of local developments. 2.2 The statutory scheme requires planning authorities to delegate to an appointed officer (in this Council, the Chief Planning Officer) the determination of applications for planning permission for local developments or any application for consent, agreement or approval required by a condition on a grant of planning permission for a local development. The “appeal” of such a decision by an applicant is by way of a review by the local review body rather than an appeal to Scottish Ministers. This balances the role of local elected members in the planning process with efficient decision making processes. The statutory scheme in its current form has been operating since August 2013. 2.3 Amendments to the Chief Planning Officer’s delegated functions in respect of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 were approved by full Council on 27 June 2018. 2.4 At its meeting on 23 August 2018, the Council agreed to changes to the statutory scheme. The agreed changes included: 2.4.1 allowing officers to determine applications for approval with up to 20 objections on householder development; Planning Committee – 12 December 2018 Page 2 2.4.2 allowing officers to determine applications for refusal with up to 20 support comments on local development; and 2.4.3 ensuring applications are determined by the Development Management Sub- committee where there are unresolved objections from statutory consultees. 2.5 The planning legislation requires a planning authority to seek approval from Scottish Ministers before adopting a statutory scheme. Approval was given by Scottish Ministers on 4 October 2018 for the Council to proceed to adopt the revised scheme. Council has not yet adopted the changes to the statutory scheme. Accordingly, the proposed changes to the schemes of delegation with respect to planning applications have not yet been implemented. 2.6 Currently around 95% of planning applications are determined by officers, meaning that the Development Management Sub-committee can concentrate on the more complex and/or contentious cases. The annual case load is approximately 4000 applications, of which around 200 applications are referred to the Development Management Sub-committee for a decision. Increased delegation is one way of improving efficiency and performance and so improving customer satisfaction. 2.7 The criteria against which a decision is made to determine a planning application under delegated authority are either: 2.7.1 mandatory (such as the number of material objections); or 2.7.2 discretionary, allowing for an element of planning judgment (such as the materiality of objections received and the likelihood of significant public interest); 2.8 In terms of the latter, Planning officers and managers build up a working knowledge of Development Management Sub-committee members’ expectations of the exercise of that judgement based on experience of handling development proposals. This working knowledge is further enhanced via the use of workshops with elected members to explore ways of working. Over the term of previous administrations, each Planning Committee has periodically reviewed the interpretation by officers of the delegation criteria to assist in achieving consistency and managing expectations. 2.9 The delegation criteria was most recently reviewed early in 2018 by the current Planning Committee members in a workshop with Planning managers to discuss service performance and improvements. It led to the proposed revisions to the Planning schemes of delegation. 3. Main report 3.1 The circumstances leading to a delegated decision to approve a planning application at Murrayfield Stadium have been questioned by some elected members. The Chief Planning Officer was asked to investigate the matter and report to Planning Committee. This report highlights the findings and recommends Planning Committee – 12 December 2018 Page 3 a tightening of procedures within the Planning service to ensure greater scrutiny in relation to the use of delegated powers. Planning application 18/023489/FUL at Murrayfield Stadium 3.2 The application for the erection of four spectator stands, a replacement 3G sports pitch and associated infrastructure and facilities on the “back pitches” at the stadium was received on 31 May 2018. It was defined as a local development application and available to be determined under delegated authority. This means that unless issues arose during the assessment of the proposals which would trigger referral to the Development Management Sub-committee, the application could be determined by appointed officers. Planning permission was granted under delegated authority on 21 September 2018. 3.3 The investigation has not revisited the assessment of the proposals but only those aspects of the assessment of planning issues which were relevant to the method of decision making. In terms of the Scheme of Delegation, there were four factors identified as explicitly applying in this instance when considering whether a report to the Development Management Sub-committee would have been required: 3.3.1 an elected member request; 3.3.2 an outstanding unresolved objection from a statutory consultee; 3.3.3 if more than six material objections had been received; and 3.3.4 if the Chief Planning Officer considered the proposals to be of significant public interest. 3.4 Factor 1: an elected member has requested, within 21 days from the date of neighbour notification, the date of the advertisement or the validation date whichever is the later, be referred to the Development Management Sub- Committee for material planning reasons. There is no record of such a request being made. 3.5 Factor 2: outstanding unresolved objections from statutory consultees and the application is recommended for approval There were no objections. The issue raised by SportScotland was addressed in a letter of undertaking by the applicant. 3.6 Factor 3: if more than six material objections have been received from third parties A total of 10 representations were received: 3.6.1 Seven were made online (6 objections and 1 support); and 3.6.2 Three were made by email (in the final assessment, these were treated as comments and not objections). 3.7 The “Decision making process: Core Questions” checklist is used by the planning case officer to decide whether to present the report of handling for inclusion in an agenda for the Development Management Sub-committee or for decision under delegated authority. The case officer completed the checklist on 5 September identifying that there were more than six material objections. On this basis they Planning Committee – 12 December 2018 Page 4 presented their draft report on 6 September for consideration by the editing team manager for inclusion in the Development Management Sub-committee agenda for 26 September meeting. The application record on the UNIform computer system showed seven objections, two representations (comments) and one support. 3.8 The calculation hinges on the interpretation of one representation (on behalf of Murrayfield Ice Rink) which refers to the proposals leading to an “intensification of use” of the site. Paragraph 3.13 below sets out the Planning Service’s common interpretation of “intensification of use”. The planning case officer and managers had assessed the proposals as operational development within the “planning unit” of Murrayfield Stadium and in that context the proposals did not amount to a material change of use. Therefore the planning case officer had summarised the representations in para 6.2 of the report as 6 objections, three general comments and one supporting letter. The representation was therefore treated as non- material and did not trigger referral to the Development Management Sub- committee for a decision. 3.9 For clarity, six of the other representations (five from local residents and one from the Water of Leith Conservation Trust) were correctly identified as material objections. One from a member of the public supported the proposals. One from the Edinburgh Access Panel (an advisory body) commented on the absence of information on the layout drawings. It was not an objection. The missing information was provided on revised plans submitted by the applicant and these are available on the Public Access module.